14-03-2018, 08:29 PM
Rather than trying to tie all of these examples together too tightly, it seems to me there are some significant differences. The first of these is whether the illustration is religious or not. The second difference is whether the three part division is a standard T-O or an inverted T-O. The religious illustrations can be oriented in regular or inverted conformation and are frequently featureless, but not all.
Religious images generally fit the 'Salvator mundi' format; they show the creation of the world. Non-religious images, illustrations of the cosmos, such as Oresme's depiction, (BNF Fr. 565), show the standard, medieval, earth-centered representation. Non-religious images in the regular T-O orientation are generally geographic maps. Non religious images in an inverted T-O format are a little harder to pin down, because they are relatively few in number and not necessarily consistent among themselves in what they contain, although they are generally consistent in using pictorial representations. The VMs stands out among inverted T-O representations in that it makes use of labels and written text instead.
The point in comparing Oresme (565) with VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is to note the similarities and the differences. The first point to note is that both images are non-religious. The second point is that both use the inverted T-O format. The third point of comparison is that Oresme depicts the three parts pictorially, while the VMs uses labels, which are in themselves ambiguous because the words cannot be read. While it does seem fairly standard that the lower half is often shown as water, the word used is not entirely clear and variously transcribed (voynich.nu).
Further comparison of other parts of these two cosmic representations shows a similarity of structure that exists despite a clear (and intentional) differences of appearance.
The lesson of this comparison, IMO, is to show that structure is the more significant factor in identification and visual appearance is clearly secondary. It is necessary to understand the internal workings of the illustration, rather than focus exclusively on the similarities of the visual aspects.
Religious images generally fit the 'Salvator mundi' format; they show the creation of the world. Non-religious images, illustrations of the cosmos, such as Oresme's depiction, (BNF Fr. 565), show the standard, medieval, earth-centered representation. Non-religious images in the regular T-O orientation are generally geographic maps. Non religious images in an inverted T-O format are a little harder to pin down, because they are relatively few in number and not necessarily consistent among themselves in what they contain, although they are generally consistent in using pictorial representations. The VMs stands out among inverted T-O representations in that it makes use of labels and written text instead.
The point in comparing Oresme (565) with VMs You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is to note the similarities and the differences. The first point to note is that both images are non-religious. The second point is that both use the inverted T-O format. The third point of comparison is that Oresme depicts the three parts pictorially, while the VMs uses labels, which are in themselves ambiguous because the words cannot be read. While it does seem fairly standard that the lower half is often shown as water, the word used is not entirely clear and variously transcribed (voynich.nu).
Further comparison of other parts of these two cosmic representations shows a similarity of structure that exists despite a clear (and intentional) differences of appearance.
The lesson of this comparison, IMO, is to show that structure is the more significant factor in identification and visual appearance is clearly secondary. It is necessary to understand the internal workings of the illustration, rather than focus exclusively on the similarities of the visual aspects.